Hypocrisy at its worse (rant warning)

Side note - every time I hear anti-gun people talk about taking away more rights, they start with "Now...I'm a hunter, but..." or "I came from a family of hunters....so I respect the 2A, but..."

I keep looking at the words in the 2A, but I can't seem to find anything about hunting.

Weird.
 
blackrifle01 said:
Side note - every time I hear anti-gun people talk about taking away more rights, they start with "Now...I'm a hunter, but..." or "I came from a family of hunters....so I respect the 2A, but..."

I keep looking at the words in the 2A, but I can't seem to find anything about hunting.

Weird.
Click to expand...

You don't find much in the second amendment: a general principal with an unusual preamble (unusual for the bill of rights) and "arms." People probably don't roll out of bed and say "let's go take some rights away from people." Right or wrong, they probably think their actions are within the bounds of that which does not violate the right. Rights have limits; look at all the 1st Amendment battles if you want to see difficult delineations and evolving standards So the real question (to me) is what are the limits of the 2nd Amendment and where do the states and federal government fit in. Just what exactly qualify as arms anyway? Something between muskets and warheads?
 
H2O_Doc said:
You don't find much in the second amendment: a general principal with an unusual preamble (unusual for the bill of rights) and "arms." People probably don't roll out of bed and say "let's go take some rights away from people." Right or wrong, they probably think their actions are within the bounds of that which does not violate the right. Rights have limits; look at all the 1st Amendment battles if you want to see difficult delineations and evolving standards So the real question (to me) is what are the limits of the 2nd Amendment and where do the states and federal government fit in. Just what exactly qualify as arms anyway? Something between muskets and warheads?
Click to expand...

The 2A is pretty clear and gives a free people all it needs in terms of guidance. "The rights of the people" and "Shall not be infringed" is pretty clear.

If you want to talk about limits, then you need evidence and a factual foundation to back up your position. There are no facts that support further limits on the 2A.

For now, the debate centers around "assault weapons" and high capacity magazines - a class of weapons that are responsible for fewer deaths than suffocation by plastic bags in the US.

If I were a voter (which I am), then the mere fact that a politician supported or supports a AWB and limitation on magazines would automatically disqualify that person from getting my vote. It shows a complete lack of common sense thinking and grasp of facts and reality. We need a certain level of intelligence in public office to address real issues, and since Sandy Hook, we have seen a significant lack of intelligence from our elected officials. Vote these dopes out.
 
Last edited:
blackrifle01 said:
The 2A is pretty clear and gives a free people all it needs in terms of guidance. "The rights of the people" and "Shall not be infringed" is pretty clear.

If you want to talk about limits, then you need evidence and a factual foundation to back up your position. There are no facts that support further limits on the 2A.

For now, the debate centers around "assault weapons" and high capacity magazines - a class of weapons that are responsible for fewer deaths than suffocation by plastic bags in the US.

If I were a voter (which I am), then the mere fact that a politician supported or supports a AWB and limitation on magazines would automatically disqualify that person from getting my vote. It shows a complete lack of common sense thinking and grasp of facts and reality. We need a certain level of intelligence in public office to address real issues, and since Sandy Hook, we have seen a significant lack of intelligence from our elected officials. Vote these dopes out.
Click to expand...

Further? Are the current magically perfect, no more needed no less warranted? Why are the current restrictions appropriate? Why shouldn't we have less gun control than we already do? Have you given in to the leftists that are trying to take our rights away?

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

The Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right."

Haven't you made a categorical error with your plastic bag argument?
 
H2O_Doc said:
Further? Are the current magically perfect, no more needed no less warranted? Why are the current restrictions appropriate? Why shouldn't we have less gun control than we already do? Have you given in to the leftists that are trying to take our rights away?

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

The Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right."

Haven't you made a categorical error with your plastic bag argument?
Click to expand...

No.

1. The leftists have been fighting a losing battle on gun control for years. AWB has been expired for years. More and more states are recognizing the rights of citizens to carry/own/use firearms. Gun ownership is at an all-time high. The sale of semi-automatic rifles is hitting record numbers. We are winning court battles left and right. The supreme court has even reaffirmed the right of the individual to firearms multiple times.

2. My argument is based in reality with sound facts. These facts have been presented over and over while the other side has nothing other than a "feeling" (even worse, the "we have to do SOMETHING" justification). Even you can agree that restricting rights based on literally nothing more than fear, hope and change is absolute and utter stupidity.
 
I say we do away with the 1934 NFA, get rid of GCA of '68, do away with the machine gun ban of '86, and disband the rogue agency of the ATF....

Hell the NFA and GCA were partially due in part to times before civil rights were in full swing and were made to keep certain weapons out of the hands of mob and blacks....

..Ahh the GCA...by Lyndon B. Johnson...man responsible for welfare and "I'll have those N*****s voting democratic for the next 200 years"....but c'mon that law was all about reducing crime with certain weapons lol

Which always dumbfounds me when the urban crime riddled cultures are so against guns along with all the extremely liberal leaning Jewish cultures. Both had laws created against them for the sole purpose of disarming them so they could be controlled by a government...
 
Last edited:
got556 said:
I say we do away with the 1934 NFA, get rid of GCA of '68, do away with the machine gun ban of '86, and disband the rogue agency of the ATF....

Hell the NFA and GCA were partially due in part to times before civil rights were in full swing and were made to keep certain weapons out of the hands of mob and blacks....

..Ahh the GCA...by Lyndon B. Johnson...man responsible for welfare and "I'll have those N*****s voting democratic for the next 200 years"....but c'mon that law was all about reducing crime with certain weapons lol

Which always dumbfounds me when the urban crime riddled cultures are so against guns along with all the extremely liberal leaning Jewish cultures. Both had laws created against them for the sole purpose of disarming them so they could be controlled by a government...
Click to expand...

What's sad about that is the often ignored by the media, but widely recognized by anyone with a brain, fact that the areas with the MOST gun control laws have the highest amount of gun crime.

There are areas of Dallas, namely Oak-Cliff, where gun crime is so pervasive, that the police will only usually respond only if someone is shot or killed. Oak-cliff used to be the richest neighborhood in Dallas, urban housing programs and high taxes forced many of the richest out of the neighborhood, and now it is a cesspool of drugs and crime.
 
shadow247 said:
What's sad about that is the often ignored by the media, but widely recognized by anyone with a brain, fact that the areas with the MOST gun control laws have the highest amount of gun crime.

There are areas of Dallas, namely Oak-Cliff, where gun crime is so pervasive, that the police will only usually respond only if someone is shot or killed. Oak-cliff used to be the richest neighborhood in Dallas, urban housing programs and high taxes forced many of the richest out of the neighborhood, and now it is a cesspool of drugs and crime.
Click to expand...

I don't know if it is ignored or if it is that there is no clear cause and effect. One might expect more gun control laws in areas where crime is high, why else have it (not too many other reasons).

Statistics can be very useful in explaining lots of things, but one needs to be careful in their use, especially in the attribution of cause and effect.

Oak Cliff has been bad for a very very long time.
 
H2O_Doc said:
I don't know if it is ignored or if it is that there is no clear cause and effect. One might expect more gun control laws in areas where crime is high, why else have it (not too many other reasons).

Statistics can be very useful in explaining lots of things, but one needs to be careful in their use, especially in the attribution of cause and effect.

Oak Cliff has been bad for a very very long time.
Click to expand...

Trust me I know. I grew up and lived in Dallas/Ft Worth for 26 years. I worked with many people who grew up in Oak-Cliff when they were building brand new houses, they all moved out in the 80's when crime started to get out of control due to much government intervention by the increasingly liberal Dallas city council.
 
H2O_Doc said:
I don't know if it is ignored or if it is that there is no clear cause and effect. One might expect more gun control laws in areas where crime is high, why else have it (not too many other reasons).

Statistics can be very useful in explaining lots of things, but one needs to be careful in their use, especially in the attribution of cause and effect.

Oak Cliff has been bad for a very very long time.
Click to expand...

Well the media and politicos conveniently leave out the fact that Chicago has repeatedly denied to acknowledge Heller v. DC and that you have to register your firearm, it can only be used in a house, not an attached garage nor patio and you can only have one "assembled" firearm in your house.

That didn't stop 500+ homicides by way of gun from happening this past year in Chicago. At this point Chicago has the harshest gun control measures of any area in the United States, and conveniently had the highest gun crime statistics to follow it.

I love my big "eff you" of being able to carry off duty in downtown Chicago, but would love it much more so if my brother's and sister's not covered under LEOSA could do the same and not have their Second Amendment rights denied to them, simply b/c they are not to be trusted with a weapon. I will disarm myself the minute the alderman turn in their protection details and CCW's....

Then again I'm currently only here for the job and can't wait to leave Crook County for good.

Oh and ten bucks says those 4473's you fill out which are supposed to be shredded are in a nice big warehouse/database somewhere with access to by ATF personnel and priviledged government officials.
 
got556 said:
Oh and ten bucks says those 4473's you fill out which are supposed to be shredded are in a nice big warehouse/database somewhere with access to by ATF personnel and priviledged government officials.
Click to expand...

They don't need the 4473's. Every single firearm that is transferred from an FFL whether to another FFL or to a private buyer must have a record of who that firearm was transferred to. It's back-door registration.

If you have bought ANY firearm from an FFL, there is a record of it, and the ATF can walk in anytime and demand those records without a warrant.
 
jwyshrek said:
You don't hear too many of these in the national news...wonder why?

Mom who shot intruder inspires gun control foes - Yahoo! News


Sorry if repost.
Click to expand...

These kinds of stories do not fit the narrative of the left-wing media.

There are numerous examples of firearms used in self-defense that will not make it past a brief mention on the local news. Even mass shooter events that were stopped by armed citizens don't get much (or any media attention). When two graduate students stopped a crazy guy intent on shooting up a school a few years back...you barely heard about it.

In fact, the Clackamas mall shooter was confronted by a CCW permit holder and his semi-automatic handgun which prevented that mass shooting from becoming something worse. Yet, NOTHING in the national news.

All we get is miss-information (remember "Aurora shooter was wearing body armor" and then the calls for banning body armor for civilian sale? Turns out he was wearing a tactical vest...BIG difference...like calling H2O "fire") and a constant "guns are bad...civilians can't be trusted with them" message.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TraumaHawk
National Forest Law Enforcement Investigations July 6-12, 2014
Replies
10
Views
1K
TraumaHawk
TraumaHawk

Members online

Total: 890 (members: 2, guests: 888)

Forum statistics

Threads
278,315
Messages
3,554,104
Members
248,016
Latest member
Advally Service

Share this page

Trending content

Back
Top